Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 194 (JHR)

Madhuri Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2017-01-27

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with a prayer for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 805, dated 12.04.2012, passed by Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby claim for appointment of petitioner no. 2 on compassionate ground has been rejected. 3. The facts in short as has been delineated in the writ petition is that Shiv Murat Singh was appointed as Assistant in Bihar State Construction Corporation Limited, Patna on 01.07.1989. After winding up of the Corporation by the then State of Bihar, the employees of various Corporations were deputed in various department of the Government as per requirement on the basis of eligibility criteria. Pursuant to the letter no. 456, dated 14.03.1997, Shiv Murat Singh and others were relieved. Thereafter, Shiv Murat Singh gave his joining at Deoghar Treasury on 09.04.1997. The Finance Department (Treasury & Accounts Directorate), Government of Bihar vide its letter no. 220, dated 17.03.1998, informed all the Treasury Officers that as per decision of the Government, the deputed employees from the different Corporations are entitled for pay protection. Pursuant to order dated 22.06.2001, Shiv Murat Singh was transferred from Deoghar Treasury and he started discharging his duties in Ranchi Treasury. Since the services of the employees of the Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Patna including other Corporations like Bihar State Construction Department was not being adjusted by the Government of Jharkhand nor they were sent back to the parent department and as such, the Managing Director, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Patna vide its letter dated 08.04.2005 requested the Finance Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna as also Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to send services of deputed employees back within sixty days. However, the Special Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, vide its letter dated 09.05.2005 replied the Managing Director, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Patna that the employees who had come on deputation, have got experience of Treasury work and their deputation is not like an ordinary deputation and as such requested to recall the letter by which it was decided to call back the services of deputed employees. However, due to laches on part of the respondents, Shiv Murat Singh could not be absorbed and in the meanwhile he died in harness on 13.01.2010 leaving behind his widow (petitioner no. However, due to laches on part of the respondents, Shiv Murat Singh could not be absorbed and in the meanwhile he died in harness on 13.01.2010 leaving behind his widow (petitioner no. 1), two sons (including petitioner no. 2), old and ailing mother and a brother. After death of Shiv Murat Singh, the family members did not receive death-cum-retiral dues nor the eldest son was given compassionate appointment though application in prescribed format along with relevant and required documents was duly made on 17.03.2010. 4. It is stated that when grievance of the petitioners was not redressed, they preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 454 of 2011 before this Court which was disposed of on 25.07.2011 with a direction to the respondents to take final decision on representation of the petitioner taking into consideration that similarly situated person Anupam Kumar Gupta was appointed on compassionate ground. However, when the order of this court was not complied with, the petitioner no. 1 filed Contempt Case (Civil) No. 805 of 2011 wherein show cause has been filed enclosing memo no. 805, dated 12.04.2012, passed by Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi rejecting claim of the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that cause of action for filing instant writ petition has arisen after passing of order dated 12.04.2012. It is further submitted that the respondents, while passing impugned order, did not consider the Circular contained in Memo No. 13293, dated 05.10.1991, which lays down the procedures for appointment on compassionate ground. Clause 11 of the said Circular lays down that it would be applicable to the Government Enterprises, Undertakings, Corporations and Boards etc. Learned counsel further submits that in the case of Bihar State Non Gazetted Employees Federation Vs. State of Bihar, the Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 01.09.2011 has already held that the services of the employees rendered during the employment in the Corporation, has to be taken into account for the purpose of pension. Learned counsel further submits that in the case of Bihar State Non Gazetted Employees Federation Vs. State of Bihar, the Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 01.09.2011 has already held that the services of the employees rendered during the employment in the Corporation, has to be taken into account for the purpose of pension. By referring the Judgment dated 06.04.2011, passed by Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10016 of 2007, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Court has directed that none of the petitioners (who were earlier employees of different Boards and Corporations/Public Sector Undertakings etc.) would be repatriated to their parent department and further they would be allowed to superannuate from the posts they are working and they would be paid their pensionary benefits. Learned counsel further gives reference to the order dated 31.07.2013, passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1693 of 2012 whereby the writ petition filed by some employees who were sent on deputation to the Treasury Department and their services were absorbed but on certain terms and conditions, which led to forfeiture of past services, has been allowed by directing the respondents to compute past services of the petitioners for the purposes of giving ACP benefits/promotions etc. and further to compute the pensionable service from the date of their initial appointment. Learned counsel further submits that in light of decisions cited above, it is settled law that the employees of the Boards, Corporations, Public Sector Undertakings/Enterprises deputed to the State Government, would be entitled for retiral benefits to be paid by State Government irrespective of them being absorbed or not and as such, the dependents would be entitled for compassionate appointment. It is further submitted that in light of aforementioned settled proposition of law, the impugned order is fit to be quashed and the respondents may be directed to appoint petitioner no. 2 on compassionate ground. By rejecting claim of the petitioners, the respondents have frustrated the sole purpose of granting compassionate appointment. 6. On the other hand, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the State submits that the employees working on deputation cannot be given benefits at par with the State Government employees. The impugned order already mentioned the case of Late Mahesh Kumar Gupta wherein it has been decided that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be extended to an employee on deputation from a Corporation. Learned counsel for the State submits that the employees working on deputation cannot be given benefits at par with the State Government employees. The impugned order already mentioned the case of Late Mahesh Kumar Gupta wherein it has been decided that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be extended to an employee on deputation from a Corporation. Learned counsel further submits that appointment of Anup Kumar Gupta on compassionate ground was also terminated vide letter no. 2095, dated 07.09.2012. In course of argument, learned counsel for the respondents draws attention of the Court towards para-19 of the counter-affidavit filed on 21.10.2016, which is reproduced herein below:- “19. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 28 of the writ petition, it is stated that though the circular contained in memo No. 13293 dated 05.10.1991 may be applicable to Government Enterprises, Undertakings and Corporations, however, it does not provide entitlement for compassionate appointment of the dependent of the employee serving on deputation in the organization where he was serving on deputation.” (Emphasis is mine) 7. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that impugned order does not warrant any interference, as there is no infirmity in the order dated 12.04.2012. The government circular is very clear on the point that there is no provision for compassionate appointment of the dependent of the employee serving on deputation in their organization. The Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department vide its letter No. 226 dated 13.01.2006 have already resolved that appointment on compassionate ground, in case of deputation, cannot be entertained which is not in accordance with law and as such, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the case of the petitioner has rightly been turned down. The plea of learned counsel regarding appointment of similarly situated person, Anup Kumar Gupta, son of Mahesh Prasad Gupta is not tenable in view of the fact that the appointment of said Anup Kumar Gupta has been terminated vide order dated 28.07.2012 of the Establishment Committee. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, observations, rules, guidelines and the settled principles of law, I find no error in the order dated 12.04.2012 and as such, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and resultantly it stands dismissed.